JB Pritzker Flexes His Political Muscles: From the Political Desk

Welcome to From the Politics DeskA daily newsletter that brings you the latest reporting and analysis from the NBC News Politics team from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.

In today’s edition, Natasha Korecki explores what last night’s Illinois primaries could mean for Governor JB Pritzker’s political future. Plus, Andrea Mitchell relives key moments from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s day on Capitol Hill.

Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.

– Adam Wollner

Illinois results solidify JB Pritzker’s ‘powerhouse’ role — and set up White House run

By Natasha Korecki

Officially, a democratic government. JB Pritzker Seeking a third term in Illinois, he narrowly won his own nomination as he prepares to face off against a Republican. Darren Bailey.

But one of the strongest narratives coming out of last night’s primaries in Illinois was how it reflected on Pritzker’s quest for the White House.

Lieutenant Governor Juliana StrattonA Senate primary win against a well-financed representative. Raja KrishnamurthyPritzker’s role as a power player in the state is now emphasized, having surpassed Stratton and aired TV ads far and wide. For Pritzker, Stratton winning the race was essential — and not just because he endorsed her. When she proposed a new, progressive platform in her Senate campaign, she also ran on the Pritzker-Stratton record.

In the months leading up to the primary, Krishnamurthy was leading in polling and fundraising. Questions swirled about whether Pritzker really had the strategic organization, influence and popularity to push Stratton over the finish line.

“It was a big test for him last night. If he didn’t succeed it would have been a speed bump on his potential entry into the presidential race. Now people don’t question his staying power,” he said. Jim DurkinFormer Republican Leader of the Illinois House.

“There should be no question in anyone’s mind,” Durkin continued, “that JB Pritzker is the undisputed powerhouse in Illinois.”

Pritzker, a billionaire, poured at least $5 million into a super PAC backing Stratton. The group, Illinois Future PAC, spent $14.8 million on ads. Although a substantial sum, it still fell short of Krishnamurthy’s expenditure.

A person involved in Stratton’s reelection effort said it was Pritzker who recognized that Democratic voters wanted to hear from a future leader willing to forcefully stand up to the president. Donald Trump.

“Democratic primary voters are in a different place than pundits and people imagine. We’ve known from the beginning, and I think JB is the first to recognize that,” said a person involved in Stratton’s re-election effort. “Fighting Trump and standing up for your people is going to be a winning message. … It’s ultimately what separates Juliana. We’ve spent tremendously. It’s not JB’s money to win this race.”

Read more from Natasha →

And see last night’s Democratic House primaries in Illinois here →

Tulsi Gabbard in the hot seat

Analysis by Andrea Mitchell

As a cabinet member in charge of all US intelligence, overseeing 17 separate agencies, the Director of National Intelligence Basil Gabbard Instead of asserting power, today seems to have decided to give it up.

Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee for the first time in over a year, he recused himself from the presidency. Donald TrumpClaims that the US went to war because of Iran’s imminent threat from its nuclear program.

Sen John OssoffD-Ga., asked: “Is the intelligence community’s assessment that there is an imminent nuclear threat from the Iranian regime?’ Yes or no?” Gabbard replied: “Senator, the only person who decides what an imminent threat is is the president.”

In response, Ossoff said, “It is your responsibility to determine exactly what the threat is to the United States.” He accused them of “dodging the question because a direct response to the White House’s statement would be the opposite.”

Sen Mark WarnerThe intelligence committee vice chairman, D-Va., wrote in his prepared testimony that U.S. bombings last June “wiped out” Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and that Tehran has made no efforts to rebuild it, he said. But when her opening statement was read at the hearing, she left out that part.

Warner asked: “Is it because the president said there was an imminent two-week threat?” Gabbard replied: “No, sir, I recognize that time is running very fast.”

He declined to reveal whether he had explained to the president that if he launched a war, Iran would likely strike neighboring Gulf states and close the Strait of Hormuz — key moves that would see Iran’s neighbors currently at loggerheads and oil prices soar.

Committee members should not be surprised. On the eve of her appearance, Gabbard previewed her stance, releasing a scathing post on social media placing all responsibility on Trump for his intelligence assessment of the Iranian threat.

Gabbard wrote: “Our commander in chief is responsible for determining what constitutes an imminent threat. … After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat, and he acted based on that conclusion.”

In his video message announcing the start of the war on February 28, Trump said Iran was trying to rebuild its nuclear program, describing the threat as “imminent”. After the war began, Trump was his special envoy Steve Witkoff He told Fox News that Iran could have enough enriched weapons-grade uranium within a week to 10 days. And in his State of the Union address days before the war began, Trump warned that Iran was working to build long-range missiles that could reach the US “soon.”

In contrast, the director of the CIA John RatcliffeHe told the Senate Intelligence Committee, which reported to Gabbard, that Iran was years away from developing missiles capable of hitting the US, adding that Iran was “gaining experience” in developing intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching Europe and US forces, but that neither he nor Gabbard could include Iran. Iran may develop the technology to develop a long-range missile before 2035 — not “soon,” as Trump has said.

Gabbard’s shaky performance at the trial again raised questions about her job security. Yesterday, the top deputy, director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center Joe KentHe resigned to protest the president’s decision to launch a war against Iran. It was the first public disagreement about the war between Trump’s top officials, though NBC News reported that the vice president JD Vance Expressed reservations about attacking Iran.

More on Iran War:

Denied by Allies, Trump Now Says He Doesn’t Need U.S. Help to Defend Strait of Hormuz By Peter Nicholas, Andrea Mitchell, Dan De Luce, and Abigail Williams

Republican Leaders Reject Demands for Public Hearing on Trump’s War with Iran by Scott Wong, Brennan Leach and Frank Thorp V

By Abigail Williams and Raquel Coronel Uribe US embassies ordered to ‘immediately’ review security as attacks spread

Follow Live Updates →

That’s all from the Politics Desk for now. Today’s newsletter is compiled by Adam Wollner and Owen Aston-Babcock.

If you have feedback – likes or dislikes – email us politicsnewsletter@nbcuni.com

And if you are a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up Here.